It costs less than half of the last result, being right in at $450.00 U.S.D.

You tell me now, logically, aside from personal preference or whatever, are any Apple products really worth paying double for when they have insufficient hardware to their less than half priced competitors?

I am sticking up for neither side here, but I am no idiot. I don't see why I'd pay $1,100 U.S.D. for a computer that's theoretically slower, has lower resolutions, is locked down in so many ways, has lesser storage capacity, and has no real advantages I can witness from the hardware specifications.

Apple controls what goes into them that means the OS can be optimized for it, which they do.

I don't see why I'd pay $1,100 U.S.D. for a computer that's theoretically slower, has lower resolutions, is locked down in so many ways, has lesser storage capacity, and has no real advantages I can witness from the hardware specifications.

So you'd rather have a car you tuned yourself that breaks down every week than an Aston Martin/Lambo/Ferrari just cause it's faster and cheaper ?

The same can be said of laptop and desktop, you are overpaying for the specs of a laptop, you should just ditch that piece of turd and use a desktop.

The market for the wealthy idiots, middle class idiots who think they're wealthy, or just idiots in general?

No one is going to even go through the trouble to find an overpriced PC to compare to a Mac, because they'd have found sixty that are twice as good for less!

The general public is very gullible when it comes to this, and will happily hand out more than they need for something equivalently comparable to something cheaper, just because a stupid glossy look, exaggerated advertising, or general stupidity.

Linux is FREE. Great printed circuit boards go for less than $300.00, and some support 32 GB of RAM!

I'll never pay for an apple product. Google diamond water paradox. The computer can be worth shit but if people think shit is worth something they'll pay anything for it. Most people are not Computer Scientists who know what a cpu is, what resolution is, what a clock rate, clock cycle, ram, or hard disk. They don't care, they just care that they have enough money to pay for their highly valued turd. Branding is powerful, image sadly is also very powerful. I want to see someone do a test.

A test where a sample group is given the option of using a computer made by apple or a computer made by microsoft, without knowing the specs of the computer. The microsoft OS'd computer would have better hardware and normal casing, and the apple would have old hardware but shiny white casing and a current LCD screen. I wonder how many people would still say the apple computer is better even after using it. The control group would have both an apple and microsoft computer with similiar or equivalent specs.

I'm probably going to blow a gasket the next time I see someone compare computers by CPU speed and memory size alone.
I'm going to guide you on a trip through reality real quick: you've told us nothing about those two computers.
There used to be a day where CPU speed mattered. There used to be a day where memory size mattered. And they still do, to a very small extent. What you've failed to mention (or even research) is the model and architecture of CPUs are in those two machines. Seriously. Speed hardly matters when comparing chips on the market. The amount of cores doesn't matter either.
Want to know why?
Four core Intel Core-i7 chips outperform every single version of AMD Zambezi 8 core chips. The frequency of the i7 chip compared to the zambezi chip doesn't matter. i7 chips that underclock zambezi chips outperform the zambezi chips. It doesn't matter how fast something operates if it can't operate well.

Which brings me to my next point. AMD A-series chips are terrible. All of them. Every single one of them. You know what else sucks? The integrated graphics on those APUs. So you'll be enjoying the higher resolution with much worse video capabilities.

Now about memory. After 4GB, there's almost no noticeable change in computer performance. The only way more than 4GB of memory benefits you is if you're running enough applications to require more than 4GB of memory. While this sounds like an easy task, you almost have to go out of your way to use more than 4GB simultaneously. I.e., running a virtual machine will cause you to need more memory. And sometimes feeding photoshop requires more memory. But if you're not an extreme power user, there's almost no difference.

Apple develops almost all of their devices in house. Which leads to outstanding quality control. MacBooks have unbelievably long lifespans because the hardware put in them aren't prone to faults for the aforementioned reason. And I'll give you a perfect example: The class action lawsuit over the early HP dv-series laptops. They were built shitty. They got hot, solder melted in the GPU and everything went to shit. Because they were built without care. Apple has very high quality standards. Every Windows laptop manufacturer I can think of doesn't even begin to compare.

It's not about what you can and can't do on one computer versus the other. Everyone knows you can do the same things on all the mainstream OS's. That's why they're mainstream. It's about the quality of the machine you're using.
The amount of problems I've had with my Windows based machine in the past year: about 17.
The amount of problems I've had with my MacBook in the last 6 years: 0.

So I'll tell you why I chose to buy a $2,000 MacBook over a $450 Toshiba laptop: I like things that don't suck.